Haskins v. Crumley
| Decision Date | 24 June 1957 |
| Citation | 312 P.2d 276,152 Cal.App.2d 64 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | John Earl HASKINS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lewis J. CRUMLEY, John W. Crumley, and Crumley, Inc., Defendants, John W. Crumley and Crumley, Inc., Appellants. Civ. 22196. |
Walter W. Faner, Canoga Park, for appellants.
Howard W. Hunter, Los Angeles, for respondent.
Respondent in this case moves to strike appellants' opening brief, and to dismiss the appeal. The motion is made upon the ground that appellants have not complied with Rules 4(b), 13 and 15(a), Rules on Appeal.
The motion under Rule 4(b) is made because appellants designated portions only of the proceedings on the trial to be transcribed by the reporter, and failed to state in their notice of appeal the points upon which they rely.
In opposition to the motion appellants say that the testimony ordered reported is all that there is upon the specific points they urge on appeal. This, however, doesn't satisfy the rule, and as the appeal is predicated upon the assertion that the evidence does not support the findings, it will be necessary for this Court to have the reporter's transcript of all of the evidence in the case.
This ruling is made upon the following statement in respondent's notice of motion to strike:
'In this case appellants have appealed from only a portion of the judgment, and the Court Reporter was instructed to transcribe only the oral proceedings directly connected with that portion of the judgment appealed from, consequently much of the testimony of witnesses have not been transcribed and there is no stipulation concerning the transcribing of only a portion of the testimony of witnesses.
'The supporting evidence relevant for a finding may be included in the testimony of the witness which was not transcribed.
'It is obvious, therefore, that the appellate tribunal cannot determine the sufficiency of any finding as to whether or not said finding is supported by the evidence unless the whole of the testimony of the witness is before the court.'
While rules on appeal are essential to orderly conduct of the work of appellate courts, and will be enforced whenever necessary, the policy of our law is to favor if possible hearings on appeal upon their merits. Lundy v. Lakin, 89 Cal.App.2d 849, 852, 202 P.2d 369; Jarkieh v. Badagliacco, 68 Cal.App.2d 426, 156 P.2d 969.
Appellants will, therefore, be permitted to perfect their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Schmalenbach, In re
...91 Cal.Rptr. 116.) Finally, it should be noted that the policy of the law is to hear an appeal on its merits. (Haskins v. Crumley (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 64, 66, 312 P.2d 276.) The appeal was timely and objector's suggestion that it should be dismissed is II In Estate of Giolitti, the deceden......
-
Slawinski v. Mocettini
...Mfg. Co. v. Brack, 172 Cal.App.2d 22, 23, 342 P.2d 26; Brown v. Guy, 167 Cal.App.2d 211, 215, 334 P.2d 67; Haskins v. Crumley, 152 Cal.App.2d 64, 65-66, 312 P.2d 276; Hinds v. Superior Court, 146 Cal.App.2d 758, 760, 304 P.2d In the instant case there are no statutory provisions or rules wh......
-
Jae Hee Kim v. An
...Kim and Lee's case-in-chief. This partial record precludes review for the existence of substantial evidence. (See Haskins v. Crumley (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 64, 65-66 (Haskins) [despite appellants' avowals that their partial reporter's transcript was adequate to show insufficiency of evidence......
-
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd.
...relief for good cause, as it did in the present case. Cf. Jarkieh v. Badagliacco, 68 Cal.App.2d 426, 156 P.2d 969; Haskins v. Crumley, 152 Cal.App.2d 64, 312 P.2d 276. Furthermore, the board may reasonably consider the grounds stated in the petition for reconsideration in which the notice o......